from the what's-that-about-power-corrupting? dept

For years, we've pointed out that neither major political party in the US seems to be very good on the issues that concern us most around here -- which is truly disappointing. With the Democratic National Convention going on this week, some are pointing out what a difference four years make. Back when President Obama was the outsider running for office, he made reversing Bush-era attacks on civil liberties a target for change in his platform. And then he won. Not only did he leave in place most of the programs against civil liberties, but he often expanded them. So here we are, after four years in power, and with the new platform out, some are noting that the strong defenses of civil liberties found four years ago are conspicuously absent this time around. Adam Sewer goes through this year's platform and the one from four years ago and points out all of the differences. Here's just one example, but click through to read them all:

Warrantless Surveillance/PATRIOT Act

2008: "We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. We will review the current Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war...We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years."

2012: The platform is silent on this issue.

This is not surprising, but it's depressing just the same. Once they're in power, people tend to want to keep power, and one way to do that is to suppress the civil liberties of the public. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually elected a principled politician? Do they even exist any more?

I fear the system does not work in favour of the principled politicians; they get outplayed, outvoted, or plainly harassed away.

This is an important part of why I cannot understand how lenient everyone is about lying politicians, and perhaps as important, on campaigns that focus on burning the opponent(s) instead of explaining their own vision and plans.

Re:

The other day I met Santa Claus on the streets and we were discussing about mythology and the likes. He actually said pretty much what my friends leprechauns and the Easter Bunny told me on the same topic: principled politicians are just a fairytale for children.

" Once they're in power, people tend to want to keep power, and one way to do that is to suppress the civil liberties of the public. "

Wow, now that's slant.

Really, it's much simpler: When in power, they realize that they need to balance between outright liberty and the public's sometimes undesired need to be protected from itself.

Civil liberties are a very slippery concept, because what one considers liberty for themselves is often hurting the liberties of others. The government's job is to try to strike a balance. Those who want "more freedom" may see certain balance points as less desirable, but the concept is the same.

Re: Principled politician?

I met one twenty years ago, running for local office in Colorado. I'll never forget that conversation. I didn't agree with him on everything, but his arguments were coherent and principled and he didn't evade questions. I voted for him, and for the first (and so far, only) time in my life, I didn't feel as if I were voting for the lesser of two evils. He lost.

Years later I talked with a politician on a street corner. After a couple of minutes I walked away, knowing only that he was adept at evading questions, a basic skill. I don't remember his name, his platform or his party.

More recently I met a politician running for state office, as he was handing out fliers and talking about his platform. I said that his mandatory-minimum-sentence plank was a terrible idea; he cut short my argument by saying that I was in favor of child molesters. I walked away boiling mad and hating the whole breed.

We are the intelligent voters; they're not going to pander to a tiny minority.

Michelle Obama wears Tracy Reese for her convention speech

First lady Michelle Obama's Democratic convention speech Tuesday night in Charlotte brought down the house, the pundits said. The dress may have helped.

Custom-designed by Tracy Reese, Mrs. O opted for a rosy pink and gray, in a silky, shiny toile sort of material, and sleeveless, of course, with a full skirt and pink pumps to finish it off. No jewelry except for her wedding rings, her hair loose and even a little flyaway.

. . . .

Four years ago, she won acclaim for her convention speech -- and for her dress. She wore a slenderizing teal blue dress by Chicago designer Maria Pinto, with a V-neck, three-quarter-length sleeves and a turquoise and silver sunburst brooch at the tip of the V.

Now might be a good time to note that, in a roundabout way, every government is a democracy, even if it's just a question of how long until the citizens get well and truly fed up with their current one.

I'd rather it not take until 2020/24 though, which is when the demographics are supposed to turn and the country's future will lie in the hands of a bunch of young people who are completely screwed thanks to having astronomical student loans and terrible jobs if they have any job at all, leaving them unable to buy houses or start families.

Re: Principled politician?

I am a bit older, and in over 40 years of voting I have met a grand total of 2 persons in elected office who I consider principled...and they were at the lower echelons of state government, i.e., a member of the San Diego California City Council and a member of the Orange County Florida County Commission.

Civil Liberties Platform

I stand before you now to promise that if I am elected we will erode your liberties more slowly than the other party.

My advisers tell me that civil liberties are a very slippery concept and that too much liberty to one person robs another person of their liberty. As such, we will limit everyone's liberty, so that no one's has enough liberty to infringe on anyone else's liberty.

My opponent will say that this is a "redistribution of liberty" and will benefit only "the elites." But I am here to strike a balance. I will weigh your freedom against the freedom of banks and corporations and ensure that freedoms are evenly distributed.

Re:

You know, it's that kind of attitude that's helped birth sites like Wikileaks. That kind of arrogance makes citizens not trust their government and gives them the need to spy on it while it spies on them. By now, it's as if the United States has become a flock of wolves.

Re:

Frequent poster, doing the AC thing since I'm running for U.S. Congress and don't necessarily want my entire post history available for my opponent to cherry-pick. From what I've seen from all of the politicians I've met over the last 6 months, working in D.C. seems to chew people up. They either conform to the system, becoming the thing that they railed against in their campaign, or they figure out that there's no way to win without compromising your principles and leave to find legitimate work elsewhere.

As the country moves farther to the right

I think pretty much everyone agrees that we're moving to the right. What was once considered moderate is now labelled liberal or far left.

I don't think a country moving to the right is going to make civil liberties a priority. With all the talk of requiring voter IDs, requiring papers to prove you are a legal resident, a push to favor Christianity over other religions, and so on, you can see the trends here.

Re: Re:

If voted for prez, I guarantee only 4 years...

I'm there only for the perks and benefits after serving office. And one free beer to every citizen of legal drinking age when inaugurated paid by the government. Hey, it won't break the bank 'cause it's already broken. Ah hell, undocumented immigrants welcomed to the free beer after signing approval for 3 years of house arrest (yes, you get to work), payment of yet undetermined fine, and first American born child of legal age drafted to the peace corps or military.
That is my platform.

Re: Principled politician?

I have said this before in a previous post.

Lower level elections like local governments you can find "Principled" politicians. Once you get higher up the food change they are already bought and sold by someone somewhere. No matter what side your on its the same people.

Re: Re: Principled politician?

Actually, I don't think Ron Paul is terribly principled. His rhetoric and his legislative history are often very, very different. So is what he says to voters and what he says to insiders. That said, I do think he's a bit more principled than most politicians.

I would call him more eccentric than insane, but as you say, that's beside the point.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

When in power, they realize that they need to balance between outright liberty and the public's sometimes undesired need to be protected from itself.

This sentiment is in direct opposition with the fundamental philosophy the US was based on. The whole point of the US was that we don't need rulers to tell us what is good for us and to enforce things "for our own good". We don't need parents, or kings.

The government is supposed to be us making collective decisions. The government is not supposed to be an elite class making decisions for everyone else.

Re: As the country moves farther to the right

I beg to differ. If anything, we've moved way farther to the left.

Government has gotten bigger and more powerful. What was once considered immoral behavior is now acceptable. Regulation by government has increased almost exponentially. Government control over social programs has expanded continuously over the last century. All of these are principles endorsed by the left.

The right, on the other hand, endorses reduction of government power and programs. Even if they never follow through.

Re:

I could spend an entire day demonstrating how wrong and stupid you are, and how you're in all odds pretending to be this stupid for some even stupider reason.

But instead, I'll settle for going with the obvious, irrefutable rebuttal:

2008 was not the democratic party's first time trying the whole "presidency" thing. Barack Obama did not fall off a turnip truck and happen to wind up on stage at the DNC. That civil liberties were in the platform at the time was cynical manipulation. They're no longer there because to campaign on something he failed to deliver for 4 years invites people to bring that up.

Incidentally, the freedom to speak anonymously is one of those pesky "civil liberties" that the government needs to protect you from using. But since you are such a good little citizen, you should really save them the trouble of having to draft laws and then make up ridiculous legal justifications and just stop posting like an anonymous coward.

Re: Re: Principled politician?

Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

Government has gotten bigger and more powerful. What was once considered immoral behavior is now acceptable. Regulation by government has increased almost exponentially. Government control over social programs has expanded continuously over the last century. All of these are principles endorsed by the left.

The government keeps expanding under Republican administrations, too. And some Republicans want to set up a vast border patrol to keep everyone out. That takes money and expands the government. And then you've got Republicans advocating additional laws to prevent abortions, gay marriage, etc. Republicans want government just as much as they accuse the Democrats of wanting it. The Republicans just want to dole out the money to different groups.

The thing is, economically no politician dares to drastically slash government or the economy tanks. Imagine what happens if the government no longer employs people, no longer pays for contracts, and no longer provides funding to citizens. The country might benefit from that sort of tough love, but if you suddenly stop handing out government money, every company in the country loses the cashflow that comes from government money, directly or indirectly. I dare the Republicans to actually stop government in its tracks and no longer pay anyone. What I am worried about is that we'll get another Bush -- a President who cuts taxes AND raises government spending. If you are going to fight a war, damn it, make citizens actually pay for it. And if they don't want to pay, maybe we won't get into so many.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

The right, on the other hand, endorses reduction of government power and programs. Even if they never follow through.
If by "endorses" you meant "pays lip service about", then I would agree with that statement. The right has no more intention of reducing government than the left; they just want to shift from social funding to military/defense funding. I couldn't possibly guess why this might be...

Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

Another thing I find quite ironic is the push from the right to expand the military.

You can't get more government than the military. My father was a career military officer. I thought it was a great life and if the government wants to hire more military personnel and take care of their families, I'm all for it.

We had government health care. We had government housing. We shopped in government run stores. We attended government run schools. The government provided a generous pension after to anyone who served 20 years or more.

The fact that I lived a government-owned life is why I don't fear the government. It was very good to my family and me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Principled politician?

I don't want to sidetrack into a debate about Ron Paul (especially since it's a bit pointless), so if you're really interested then I'll let you Google examples for yourself. They're pretty easy to find. Look at double-billing for airline flights, misrepresenting the positions of people who oppose him, and the differences between his positions now vs his positions when he ran for President the first time.

But do keep in mind that he is better on this sort of thing than most politicians.

Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

Just because the government is bigger doesn't make it more powerful. In fact, the decentralized nature of our government essentially makes it relatively weak in the grand scheme of things.

It's when checks and balances are ignored or side-stepped that we start to have problems.

If what was once considered immoral behavior is now considered acceptable, wouldn't that suggest that we're decreasing regulation? At this point, if you're a corporate entity especially, you can get away with just about anything...

A principled politician has a much harder time getting campaign contributions from special interests and thus a much harder time winning elections. The system, as currently configured, rejects principled politicians.

Re: Re: Re:

It's certainly arrogance. You're literally saying "well you only think that about civil liberties because you aren't capable of seeing it the way 'we' do." It's completely naked arrogance no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

It's easy to say but not to do? You say that as if we we've always been doing this. We haven't. That's the problem with government, once they apply the wrong remedy they claim it's now impossible to go back.

Better off in all areas? Really? You must be blind to a lot to make that kind of claim.

Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just to add some teeth to that last part:

"The United States continues the decline that began a few years ago, falling two more positions to take 7th place this year. Although many structural features continue to make its economy extremely productive, a number of escalating and unaddressed weaknesses have lowered the US ranking in recent years. …some weaknesses in particular areas have deepened since past assessments. The business community continues to be critical toward public and private institutions (41st). In particular, its trust in politicians is not strong (54th), perhaps not surprising in light of recent political disputes that threaten to push the country back into recession through automatic spending cuts. Business leaders also remain concerned about the government’s ability to maintain arms-length relationships with the private sector (59th), and consider that the government spends its resources relatively wastefully (76th). A lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be the country’s greatest area of weakness (111th, down from 90th last year)."

Re: Re:

It takes a special type to want to exist in the fishbowl of politics. Even the "principled" individuals eventually succumb to the inertia of corruption, conceit, and arrogance that are part and parcel of political activity. It has always been this way.

Off point but an interesting thought , give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.

Re:

"Really, it's much simpler: When in power, they realize that they need to balance between outright liberty and the public's sometimes undesired need to be protected from itself."

That's where the arrogance comes in; who the hell are they to think it's okay to take away the citizenry's liberties to protect said citizenry from itself? Especially when what they are trying to protect said citizenry from is a figment of the cloistered politician's imagination, bolstered by their cronies tilted view points.

Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

1) You didn't read what he said and 2) you are confusing right/left with Republican/Democrat.

As for 1), he did say "Even if they never follow through".

As for 2), Republicans claim to be on the right. Right and left is about ideals, Republicans and Democrats are specific implementations. Those implementations aren't necessarily inline with ideals.

Of course, if there is only right and left on the continuum, and you have fascism on the right and communism on the left, then I can see how some think we've moved to the right. But if you have big government on the left and small government on the right, then we have absolutely moved to the left.

Re: Michelle Obama wears Tracy Reese for her convention speech

Actually, nice job! This sums up nicely everything that is wrong with politics. It is all superficial flash and no substance. Nothing is being done, but damn, it looks good and people feel good about it.

Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

It has been my observation that the ONLY people who ever say that the nation is less Christian, are themselves Christians. No one else ever seems to notice this. And in fact thinks the exact opposite, that the Christians are taking over the government.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Principled politician?

Maybe a troll or maybe we are not seeing eye to eye on definition of "principled".

When "principled" also means taking a "consistent" stance on something where the scientific evidence has changed or your argument no longer applies to reality, it is just a bad idea. Also: The worst thing in the world is following one single ideologi in all walks of life. It means that you have neglected to take stances from conviction and slavishly defers to old arguments. God forbit, that you learn something new!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

The people in East Berlin before the wall came down Lived a "government owned life".

It's my understanding that they didn't like it very much...

I'm just saying that the US military is a government-owned life. No getting around that. Expand the military and you are expanding government. Put more people in the military and give out more government contracts for military operations and you are expanding government.

It was nice to have all that free medical care. And retired military do appreciate the pension.

Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

But if you have big government on the left and small government on the right, then we have absolutely moved to the left.

Where would you put the shareable movement? Let's say people are forming cooperatives but the government isn't involved. Is that left because it involves a form of communal ownership or right because it is outside of standard forms of government?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

The far left and the far right could probably find a meeting of the minds if politicians weren't trying to divide and conquer. For example, does this sound left or right?

About the Institute for Local Self-Reliance | Institute for Local Self-Reliance: "ILSR challenges the conventional wisdom that bigger is better, that separating the producer from the consumer, the banker from the depositor and lender, the worker from the owner is an inevitable outcome of modern economic development. Surprisingly little evidence supports this conventional wisdom. In every sector of the economy the evidence yields the same conclusion: small is the scale of efficient, dynamic environmentally benign societies."

Re: Re:

Obama, like 99.99% of politicians, is a lying weasel. He will tell whatever lies he needs to get elected and then piss on the people who voted for him. He sees voters as nothing more than stepping stones.

Worse, he seems to think that the US is ruled by a monarchy and that he was elected king rather than president.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

...And government military spending is eating up roughly two thirds of the entire country's GDP.. but hey, since we've already almost maxed the credit card with crippling debt, why not hire more? Hell, we could even run military recruitment ads on every major network touting our 'Global force, for good'. Maybe next we can start the 'Obama Youth' program, and intern dissenters in camps in order to 're-educate' the public as to the perils of free thought.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

We lead the world in military equipment sales. It's a growth industry for us.

IPS – U.S. Foreign Weapons Sales Triple, Setting Record | Inter Press Service: WASHINGTON, Aug 27 2012 (IPS) - "U.S. weapons sales around the world have massively expanded over the past year, setting several records. Agreements for foreign arms sales in 2011 totalled around 66.3 billion dollars – three times higher than the previous year and constituting an 'extraordinary increase', according to the Congressional Research Service."

tyPo gRaphiCal eRror

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

Sweet, let's liquidate the nuclear arsenal then. That should being in some greenbacks.

Yes, we could sell the weapons to other countries, and then increase Homeland Security and the Defense Department to protect us from the weapons we have just sold. We'd make money on the sale, and then create jobs by hiring inspectors and soldiers.

Re: Principled politician?

We're out here. But it now costs ridiculous amounts of money to win an election, and with companies doing most of the donating, 'principled' is a dirty word. Step up and donate to your local principled politicians and you might see one move up for once!

Re: Re: 2 way street

thank you...
even further, it is the party insiders/king-makers who choose which of the two flavors of the one Korporate Money Party we are allowed to confirm for them...
the WHOLE SYSTEM is bent towards excluding virtually ANY third party insurgency...
(yes, it is *technically* possible, there are just so many roadblocks and bottlenecks PURPOSEFULLY erected by the duopoly, that it is *practically* impossible...)

that *some* few third party campaigns have done as well as they have, is testament to the dissatisfaction of everyone, NOT that 'our' (sic) system is amenable to running a third party campaign...
as i see it, we are fast approaching a fork in the road: one leads to a renewed small-dee democracy, and one is leading us to a repressive, fascist totalitarian regime...

dismantling the present duopoly is a prerequisite for reclaiming democracy; the alternative is revolution...
at this point, i'd just as soon go the revolution route...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As the country moves farther to the right

"government military spending is eating up roughly two thirds of the entire country's GDP"

That's not even remotely close to true. 2/3 of GDP? Think about what that would mean. Did someone slip in a 67% income tax rate (with no deductions) when I wasn't looking, and spend ALL of it on the military?

And before you say "I meant 2/3 of the budget" it's not 2/3 of the budget, either, because SS and Medicare and interest on the debt take up WAY more than 1/3 when you put them together.